cosnut

In response to post 81: Time dilation is proven. But it is only proven for one of the relatively moving objects. The one that got accelerated. That is clock that is in a different state. Proving the one way speed of light is only impossible when you are using the speed of light to make the measurements. Do you really believe that Einstein was unaware of the M & M experiments - his fascination with light was an obsession since his early childhood. The M and M experiments were well publicized - even Einstein's biographers have a problem explaining his pretense of vaguely hearing something about it - What is a G field -... read the 1918 paper. References: Einstein's theory of Relativity, by Max Born, 1962 and 1965, Dover at page 356 - "the clock paradox is due to a false application of the Special theory of Relativity, namely to a case in which the methods of the general theory should be applied." also see page 261 and 262. For what its worth, the introduction of a "g" field, is in my opinion, incorrect and it obscures the real reason for the time dilation. The twin paradox is not symmetrical - I didn't say it was - but two space ships in free space passing each other at relative velocity v is symmetrical since each is free to consider himself as not moving (the inertial frame) and each will measure the other clock as slow according to relativity. This is an example of apparent time dilation - real time dilation can involve a one way trip or a round trip - but it always involves a change in velocity - and the experiments confirm the clock that got the boost runs slower. There may be one experimental exception to that, but I won't go into it

Here is some thoughts for contemplating. First of all, S.R. is half proven - when a particle or clock is accelerated to a new velocity and then coasts at the new velocity which is different than the velocity of clocks on earth, the clock which has been raised to a higher velocity always runs slow. But there are very few measurements made by clocks aboard hi speed muons and pions accelerated in the laboratory to verify that from the perspective of the high speed clock the clock on earth runs slow. Same sort of situation arises with regard to measuring the speed of light - the round trip speed of light is always measured to be constant, but its difficult to find good experimental evidence for the constancy of the one way velocity of light. The M & M experiments measured the over and back velocity - Einstein extended the interpreted of that result in his 1905 paper to explain why the traveling clock that leaves earth and travels for a long time and returns, will have accumulated less time. But in actuality, the clock never really needs to return. It could stop on a distant planet and when it did, its clock would have accumulated less time that any clock in the earth frame including those spaced along the way that were not moving wrt earth. In 1918 Einstein realized that SR as originally framed, could not account for the effect as originally presented - he introduced a G field and worked the problem, but upon a careful reading, it also raises problems. Max Born in his book flat out states that the twin problem cannot be solved using SR, as do a number of other authors. Any time the experiment is symmetrical with respect to the motion (i.e., two trains passing each other at hi speed in space) the clocks in the train taken to be at rest will appear to have accumulated more time than the clock aboard the other train - but since there is no way this can be real for both trains, when the clocks are brought together they must read the same. Real time dilation can only occur when one clock is raised to a different state - it is not the acceleration that brings this about, that the two frames are no longer identical. This is the situation with the pion that travels in the lab or the spaceship that goes to Altair - in both cases, the traveling clock is given an initial boost but for most of the journey the speed is constant - nonetheless the difference in the total amount of accumulated time continues to grow - all the time it is boosted clock is moving at constant velocity

What happened in the beginning is still much of a mystery - and may always be. If you assume the velocity distance law represents real changes in velocity of nebula, then you can use it to get an estimate of what is happening at the present. For an accelerating universe H can be taken as invariant in which case since v = Hr, then dv/dt = H(dr/dt), but at the Hubble sphere dr/dt = c, so dv/dt = Hv = c^2/R If the same formula applied near the beginning the initial expansion rate would be very large owing to the small size of the universe - in some theories expansion rates are many times that of light during early epochs. But the STR does not apply to expansion velocities inasmuch as the nebula are considered to be commoving with space

In the final analysis, it is likely Dark Matter, if it exists, will not be made of particles already known - it least to the extent their properties are now known - if it turns out to be a neutrino - the mechanism of accelerated expansion on a global scale will involve some new physics and a lot of speculative new theory as to how these particles function to accelerate masses on a global scale

Epistemologically, Einstein's one sentence description of GR is the operative medicament for a changing matter-changing G universe. Hubble's disposition of the static universe should have freed cosmology from the bondage of an invariant G and fixed inertial mass. The problem with limiting the allowable change in G to be less than what would be disclosed by the accuracy of the experiments is that the experiments are measuring MG. Once one of the factors such as G is considered fixed, then M follows - and the options for modeling a universe are severely limited. An evolving cosmos must accommodate at some early era, a whole lot of inertial mass in a short amount of time, to explain forever-after a fixed G, fixed mass evolutionary structure So to make things work an inflation epoch is introduced, very high expansion velocities are required to comport with models based upon LCDM, the expansion velocity decreases due to G, then without explanation resumes. What is elegant about the "Dirac G/Mach mass" universe is that no fine tuning is required - no requirement to separately adjust the ratio between G and M because one derives from the other - the universe always appears to have critical density. The big problem is that the only experiments that could support the "Dirac G/Mach mass" universe are those already discussed (the Faint Sun paradox and the 1a Supernova). To interpret the latter as the result of varying G, would shake up a few people.

This is a follow-up to Post 18, specifically a derivation of the G field based upon Mach's principle. Attached are two pages which illustrate the G field derived from cosmic mass content yields the same result as the G field derived from an accelerating empty space formalism. That the two are equal can be interpreted in several ways - the view taken in the Cosmodynamic Thesis is that the matter field is a consequence of spatial acceleration that leads to equal and opposite forces - consequently the net kinetic result is a coasting universe (q = 0). Even though empty space is accelerating - matter flux is net 'c' Interested readers please see attached pages Chapter III PP 55-57.pdf

Here is the obstacle to the present limit on the variability of G, How do we test for changing G - we observe things that depend upon G, like the orbits of the moons of mars - what are we measuring We set two things equal, Gravitational force = centripetal force F = Mm'G/(r^2) = m'v^/r Result MG = (v^2)r This test like every test we can think to perform, tells us that the MG product is constant - But variable G is intimately tied to the idea of a zero energy universe. Two things are varying at the same time. The inertial property of mass which we denote by M is also the energy property we denote by M. Machian bootstrap mechanics must be in play in a zero energy universe. Dirac's LNH required that G vary as I/R. We would be able to measure 1/R changes by the drift in the orbits of planetary moons during a 5 year study, but we don't. That is because the MG product in our universe is always constant. I pondered this particular problem for a long time. Eventually I found a set of equations that is internally consistent with G proportional to1/R. They are totally in agreement with some other observational peculiarities such as the ratio long studied by Robert Dicke and others as to why the ratio GM/R(c^2) = 1 within the limits of experimental error (where M is the mass of the Hubble sphere). Its a simple consequence of the fact that cosmic mass is equal to [4(pi)R^2]kgm/meter^2 and G = [c^2/4(pi)R] as derived in the attachment to my previous post. So as you see, the expansion theory of gravity does not fit within the experiments that show G to be constant. But there are no such experiments. Not one. You cannot measure G by itself. I am always reminded of Einstein's statement when asked to describe GR in one sentence, he responded: "Time, Space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter...." There are some beautiful benefits to a theory built upon non-constants - no fine tuning is required to balance inertial mass, gravity is revealed as an emergent field, a consequence of expansion. I managed to copy off another page which readers may find useful in criticizing the derivation - I will attach it in a separate post Thanks again for your interest Mordred , seems you are the only one curious about the theory - if you like I will attach a copy of chapter I to an email which can read at your leisure for comic relief Here is a page which I will try to upload for those who would like to see a more physical perspective A bit of history on his subject from a personal perspective: Some years ago there was a thread on PF started by another skeptic who had the same idea that G could be derived from expanding space. His method involved writing an expression for the g force between the mass of the universe and some other mass using Newton's gravitational force equation and work backwards and solve for G. I exchanged posts with him as I had already derived my own expression for G in terms of cosmological acceleration - he used the velocity-distance law v = Hr and differentiated as I had done previously to see where it would lead. The resulting acceleration is c^2/R, but at the time the accelerating universe had not been discovered so I didn't know whether the approach would have any merit. Anyway it led to a G G = 3(H^2)/4(pi)(rho) where rho is the average cosmic density After revamping my own formulation from an Einstein-de sitter exponentially decelerating universe to a q = -1 accelerating universe in 1998, I found rho = (3/R)(kgm/meter^2). When substituted into the above equation, the expressions for G are the same (both subject to the 5/6 correction required to convert from a two sphere to a three sphere G field as previous repeated). Page 7 of Chapter I, Cosmodynamics.pdf

Readers will also note that the expression for the local g field can be reworked backwards to extract big G. Specifically, the local force acting upon a local mass rearranges as: F = [(c^2)/4(pi)R][(meters^2)/kgm] x {Me/(r^2)} Then calling everything underlined between the brackets 'G,' the local force is F reduces to the standard form of the gravitational force equation; F = G{(Me/r^2} where e is a subscript, and r can have any value greater that the radius of the planet As previously belabored, R is the radius of a two sphere universe. When adjusted by the 5/6 factor, the force corresponds to that measured for the earth and G corresponds to the measured value for a Hubble constant in the range of 71

The legend states a 4.8 MB file can be handled, but After trying several times to up load a one MB file covering the essentials of the First Chapter I gave up and managed to get a one page Appendix to load. I will annotate how the result were arrived at if anyone is interested, The one page summary actually takes a known planet and makes a comparison of how the model plays out - there are immediately two things that will raise questions - why is it possible to substitute one kgm per meter for the Hubble surface density. In the paper I derive the Hubble mass as 4(pi)R^2 kgm/m^2. This is approximately what one arrives at using the estimated value of 10^53 kgm for the Hubble mass and 10^26 meters for the Hubble radius, so there is some credibility for the one kgm/meter^2 surface density based upon the stand model and the estimates obtained therefrom. The other fact which will arose suspicion is 5/6 correction factor - the two sphere model leads to a simple one to one relationship between the two surface areas and the two masses. But the energy of a two sphere of mass M and radius R is less than the energy of a three sphere of mass M and radius R. The two sphere as a coefficient 1/2, the threes sphere a coefficient 3/5 - the energy difference for the same radius is thus 5/6 greater for the three sphere - so there needs to be a radial adjustment of 5/6. Appendix II-a.pdf

Thank you for the links. The first paper on the Faint Young Sun Paradox is directly in point. Of particular interest for me was the discussion which centered on the Supernova ...." a larger G value in the past would result in SN1a being fainter than predicted by the standard candle hypothesis." At page 40 of my thesis, I state: "A larger Gravitational acceleration requires less mass to create the same force. Since electron degeneracy pressure is constant, less mass is required to trigger 1a supernova events" As I indicated in my post, because M increases during the growth of the cosmos and G falls off as I/R per Dirac, the theory admits much greater G variance than that allowed in other theories. Most of the papers have failed to appreciate that the planetary lunar orbital data verifies the constancy of the MG product, not the constancy of G - so the theorists are unnecessarily limiting their discussion to very small changes that would not be revealed by the constancy of the lunar orbits . The faint Sun problem and the 1A super nova data are both look-back experiments to a time when the result would be different if G were large and M less. So It would seem that since the solar intensity is proportional to the 7th power of G and the fifth power of solar mass, the faint Sun paradox could easily be explained ---and without having to postulate that a greater G would have resulted in a closer orbit to the Sun as did the authors - again - orbits are not affected if the MG product is constant. Is there a place on this forum where I can post a complete copy of the Thesis - I have not been able to upload selected parts successfully

Understand - this is a theory that does not fit the standard model although it does not conflict with GR per se. In fact, if it turns out to have merit, it bolsters all theories in the sense that they now depend upon G as a magic constant determined only empirically - to that extent all theories are incomplete - this doesn't seem to bother anyone since all theories are incomplete to some extent - but in the case of gravity, theory is descriptive at the point where functionality is critical to understanding.

I don't believe I said anything about a constant density, the density turns out to be rho = (3/R)(kgm/meters^2) where the multiplier units follow from the transform from (vol acc)/area to (vol acc)/mass which I will present shortly. Density falls off inversely with radius rather than inversely with the volume - inasmuch as mass is not constant. Two things are varying at the same time - this initially sounds rather revolting - but it turns out to resolve a number of mysteries - What is verified by experiment is the constancy of the MG product - In the theory I briefly outlined in post 1, the acceleration of space corresponds to (H^2)R along any line of action, so if this is to be a basis of G, then G will be formed from c^2/R, in other works G decreases as 1/R as Dirac proposed in his LNH. Now the attempts to measure G using long term studies of lunar orbits are often cited as debunking variable G - but these studies only confirm the constancy of the MG product. There is no law of conservation of mass, energy as is well known, is turned into mass during proton-proton bombardment. But in the case of expanding space as the source, we are not talking about new particle creation, but rather enhanced inertia. This is then a Machian process where the amount of inertial mass grows as the universe expands. So instead of trying to fit the explanation of the universe into a framework of fixed constants (G and Cosmic Mass) we incorporate two ideas that together allow Inertia and G to vary. This leads to heretofore mysteries easily explained, as will be shown subsequently. Ok I will type, copy and paste. When I looked at the various topics I recall a lot of things that looked very controversial, like positive claims of ether and the like - so I mistakenly thought this was more flexible forum that PF. One point - I believe your formula for rho critical has a c^2 term by mistake - you may want to correct it.

I have a very strong conviction that the constants, G, q, alpha, can be derived from fundamental physics principles once the right model is discovered. I tried several times to explain how to transform from Volumetric acceleration/area to volumetric acceleration/mass and finally gave up - not on the theory, but the way the discussion had proceeded with no progress. To the few who were still trying to understand without making rude comments, I offered an opportunity to download the entire theory and to correspond by email. One of the things that became very frustrating was that when drafting a detailed equation it takes some time and for whatever reason, that web site times-out too quickly and on several occasions all the effort of composing a detailed post was lost.

Thanks for your response Mordred The theory is not confined to a closed or curved universe, I am using the Hubble sphere as a measuring gauge - space can be flat or curved within the framework of the equations. I may have made a typo - I am referring the q = -1 de Sitter universe (exponential expansion at the present), I did not mean to refer to q raised to the -1 power. As will be shown subsequently, the formalism is not a decelerating universe - so the 1932 Einstein- de Sitter model is not applicable. In fact density and gravity will be shown to depend upon the expansion rate - so density always appears to have a value that corresponds to a constant c expansion rate (q = 0) In this regard, the model conflicts with the present LambdaCDM model but it doing so it eliminates the thorny problem of why the universe needs to be fine tuned to a critical density. In evaluating a new theory, one is obliged to temporarily suspend judgment based upon theory extracted from models that are in conflict - this does not mean one ignores facts which are well documented. What is generally not in issue is the approximate age of the universe (14 G years, present Hubble radius about 1 x 10^26 meters, flat or nearly flat space). Interestingly, the theory of gravity from expanding space does not conflict with GR regarding curvature, but it attributes it as a consequence of the warping of the global acceleration field rather than the cause of gravity. I have read many of your posts on PF, thanking you again for taking the time to reply Today I will try to answer my rhetorical at the end of the first post.

I will start with a simple assertion: The gravitational constant expressed as meters^3/sec^2 per kgm is equivalent to exponential cosmological acceleration per unit mass, i.e., volumetric acceleration per unit mass. Starting with a Hubble sized sphere of radius R having a volume 4/3(pi)R^3, differentiate twice to get volumetric acceleration. Since the Hubble grows at constant velocity c, the volumetric acceleration for a space receding at a constant rate c is 8(pi)Rc^2. However, we are interested in the recessional rate which is believed to be accelerating - if the recessional rate is accelerating there will another term which corresponds to q = -1, that is [4(pi)R^2][d^2R/dt^2]. But this second term can be written as 4(pi)R^2 [-(c^2)q/R] and for q = -1 the total acceleration for a q = -1 universe is 12(pi)Rc^2 Next divide by the Hubble area 4(pi)R^2 to convert the volumetric acceleration to a surface integral. The volumetric acceleration per unit area is therefore 3(H^2)R. Einstein introduced Lambda to balance gravity - he needed to have an acceleration that balanced G. (Lambda)® would balance G if Lambda equaled 3(H^2). And if Lambda equals 3(H^2), then (lambda)® is simply the cosmological volumetric acceleration of exponentially expanding space as per the above. After responding to the reverberations from the members, I will complete the derivation of G by illustrating the transform from volumetric acceleration per unit area to volumetric acceleration per unit mass. At this juncture the two accelerations are equal, but of course one will say - how can a static universe be at the same time an accelerating universe?